Thank you so very much for the compliments & kind words :)

This has definitely generated an interesting discussion/debate. I didn't think that the choice to use something that does exist vs. something imaginary in my analogy would be a contentious one, but I can certainly see both sides of the issue. I do think that choosing something that exists was the right choice, but I understand where Steve's coming from and always appreciate his thoughtful feedback (and thus don't see the need to be rudely dismissive of him or of the position that he and flying goose are advocating.)

Anyway, in addition to my general disgust at articles/books, etc. that are full of meaningless nonsense meant to sound deep and profound (a lot of that disgust stems from how "postmodernist thinking" was the lens through which we students were expected to interpret literature when I was an undergraduate English major and then a graduate student. This is, unfortunately, the case today in many, if not most, English departments at American universities), I feel especially disturbed and frustrated by the theological-babble variety of meaningless nonsense, for the reasons I mentioned in my post and also because of the nasty and scary childhood religious indoctrination that I experienced.

I want to ask these authors how in the world their ineffable God of magical unknowable sparkly wonderment can be reconciled with the frightening and vindictive God I was taught about as a child and how their delightful God who is an unknowable mystery can be reconciled with the God whom I was told would punish people with an eternity in a literal hell for even small-ish transgressions. I just don't get it, and find their nonsense disturbing on many different levels. (And I don't mean to claim that I had the nastiest childhood religious indoctrination ever or that my experience was particularly extraordinary. It's just easiest to use my own life as an example.)